Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Another drafting effort -- "Response to DAGv4 2% limitation"

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

If we have a vote, i think we will need at least the following range of values

a. 0% with DAGv4
b. 0% with other defined constraints (please explain in note)
c. 0% with no constraint

e. 2% with DAGv4
f. 2% with other defined constraints  (please explain in note)
g. 2% with no constraint

h. 5% with DAGv4
i. 5% with other defined constraints  (please explain in note)
j. 5% with no constraint

k. 15% with DAGv4
l. 15% with other defined constraints  (please explain in note)
m. 15% with no constraint

n. 100% with DAGv4
o. 100% with other defined constraints  (please explain in note)
p. 100% with no constraint

q. ____% with DAGv4
r. ____% with other defined constraints  (please explain in note)
s. ____% with no constraint

t. don't really care about %ages it is a false choice
u. none of the above


wonder if it is worth it.




On 8 Jul 2010, at 12:56, Richard Tindal wrote:

> If  (underlined) the only choices were DAG 4 language with 2%  versus DAG 4 
> language with 15% 
> I would vote for 15%
> 
> RT
> 
> 
> On Jul 8, 2010, at 8:03 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 
>> Mikey,
>> How on earth can you say there is a consensus around a 15% threshold??
>>  
>> That number has been attacked repeatedly, rejected by the majority of the WG 
>> in an exiting poll, and exposed repeatedly as an arbitrary, plucked- 
>> out-of-the-air dividing line lacking in any economic, regulatory of 
>> theoretical justification.
>>  
>> --MM
>>  
>>  
>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] 
>> On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
>> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 8:47 AM
>> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Another drafting effort -- "Response to DAGv4 2% 
>> limitation"
>>  
>> hi all,
>>  
>> during the last call i abruptly changed my mind about the need to launch a 
>> "reaction to current DAGv4" paragraph -- going with Amadeu's suggestion that 
>> we just do a poll instead.  now i've changed my mind back -- i think we 
>> still need a paragraph or two to describe the question and frame it for us 
>> to vote on.  so i've appointed myself the convener of a little sub-group to 
>> write this section and invite anybody who's interested to join me (just 
>> chime in on the list if you see something that needs to be fixed).
>>  
>> here's a sketch of the language i'm thinking we need to write -- i don't 
>> think this needs to be real long.
>>  
>> - the group needs more time to arrive at a consensus view of the larger 
>> issue of VI and cross-ownership,
>>  
>> - but there is [some kind of consensus, to be determined with a poll] that 
>> the current 2% limitation in DAGv4 is unworkably low and needs, at a 
>> minimum, to be increased in order to align with the ownership-disclosure 
>> requirements for public companies around the world (Jeff Neuman's point -- 
>> jazzed up with the need to accommodate more than just US securities law).
>>  
>> - there was also [some kind of consensus, to be determined with a poll] that 
>> setting the threshold at 15% was desirable in that it would be similar to 
>> current practice in most existing TLDs
>>  
>> anybody want to help me tune this up?  
>>  
>> mikey
>>  
>>  
>> - - - - - - - - -
>> phone  651-647-6109  
>> fax                        866-280-2356  
>> web      http://www.haven2.com
>> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
>>  
>